Description
Despite widespread nominal support for the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), application of the norm continues to be inhibited by states which suspect its interventionist aspects and the hesitancy that exists among states to act when responsibility is diffused. The author argues that, given the relative strength of its economy and military, its global influence, and its diplomatic prowess, the UK is one state which should bear a “special” responsibility to protect. However, the UK's controversial past and interventionist tendencies contribute to Global South scepticism. To address this, the author proposes a third path, the “reparative responsibility to protect” (R-R2P), tying the UK's responsibilities to its record of colonial injustice. The moral justifications for the R-R2P include the fact that many legacies of British colonialism pose a risk factor for mass atrocities, as well as that the UK's capacity to act is in part a result of colonial exploitation. The R-R2P attempts to understand more fully how colonial injustice and its legacies are relevant to consolidating the effectiveness of R2P, as well as to develop a broadened understanding of with whom responsibility lies when it comes to mass atrocity crimes happening in former colonies.
